Big games, hype and exclusive reviews
Today we see the release of Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed, the Crusade-era action adventure where the player assumes the role of Altair, a member of the secret "Hashashin"society, an ancient Middle Eastern sect of elite assassins. Want to check out the cities of Jerusalem and Acre? No problem! It's a free, open world to explore at our leisure with our pal Altair as he picks off various political targets in each of the cities. Sounds fucking awesome, no?
Well, gaming is fucking expensive. Sixty dollars is a lot of money for a game. To that end, I research what I purchase and have a few trusted sources of game reviews (Ziff Davis's 1Up Network for example). Online reviews are usually up well before a game ships. Guess what? No review from 1up. Gamespot? Not so much. IGN? Nope. But fear not! There WERE reviews out there. And they weaved tales of a GLORIOUS gaming experience such that I have yet to experience (and still have yet to since i haven't played the fucking thing). Yahoo, Game Informer and a few other places scored the thing in the high 9's. To give you a frame of reference, this is like Mario, Metal Gear and Halo territory. Color me cautiously optimistic at this point.
Sure enough, after the game shipped today, 1up and IGN's reviews popped up. (So did Gamespots, but they gave it a 9 so fuck them) What did AC score? a 7.0 and a 7.7 respectively. Pretty average for such a heavily hyped game. My question to you, gentle reader is why did we have to slog through these bullshit reviews? Was it pure luck? Were the developers wiping their brows saying "whew, good thing the guys who loved our mediocre game were the first ones to publish reviews. And good thing we gave the exclusive reviews to the ones who loved it!"
I realize this isn't the first time this has been done in media as a whole. I just want to understand the process. My friend and I were wondering how exactly one goes about being picked for an "exclusive" review. I would imagine that it's heavily implied that the game better be reviewed well if said gaming publication would like future "exclusives". I wonder how the conversations go:
"Yes, we'd love to meet at NINE....or does 9.5..i mean 9:30 work better for you?"
I am a big proponent of games being viewed on the same level of entertainment as movies. I honestly like Metal Gear Solid 1-3 more than some movies I've seen, but this process still makes them look like toys that they need to move units on rather than the art most of us really want them to be.
As soon as I rent the game (hopefully tonight) I'll post my impressions.
Well, gaming is fucking expensive. Sixty dollars is a lot of money for a game. To that end, I research what I purchase and have a few trusted sources of game reviews (Ziff Davis's 1Up Network for example). Online reviews are usually up well before a game ships. Guess what? No review from 1up. Gamespot? Not so much. IGN? Nope. But fear not! There WERE reviews out there. And they weaved tales of a GLORIOUS gaming experience such that I have yet to experience (and still have yet to since i haven't played the fucking thing). Yahoo, Game Informer and a few other places scored the thing in the high 9's. To give you a frame of reference, this is like Mario, Metal Gear and Halo territory. Color me cautiously optimistic at this point.
Sure enough, after the game shipped today, 1up and IGN's reviews popped up. (So did Gamespots, but they gave it a 9 so fuck them) What did AC score? a 7.0 and a 7.7 respectively. Pretty average for such a heavily hyped game. My question to you, gentle reader is why did we have to slog through these bullshit reviews? Was it pure luck? Were the developers wiping their brows saying "whew, good thing the guys who loved our mediocre game were the first ones to publish reviews. And good thing we gave the exclusive reviews to the ones who loved it!"
I realize this isn't the first time this has been done in media as a whole. I just want to understand the process. My friend and I were wondering how exactly one goes about being picked for an "exclusive" review. I would imagine that it's heavily implied that the game better be reviewed well if said gaming publication would like future "exclusives". I wonder how the conversations go:
"Yes, we'd love to meet at NINE....or does 9.5..i mean 9:30 work better for you?"
I am a big proponent of games being viewed on the same level of entertainment as movies. I honestly like Metal Gear Solid 1-3 more than some movies I've seen, but this process still makes them look like toys that they need to move units on rather than the art most of us really want them to be.
As soon as I rent the game (hopefully tonight) I'll post my impressions.
posted by i_am_not_jon_ames | 4:57 PM
|
0 comments
